I'm going to reiterate other people's points here, that 7Sage is the best way to go. I've done Kaplan and it was pretty bad. I peeked at the old books as I went through 7Sage for comparison and can't believe that many people carry out their LSAT prep exclusively through their program. If you are serious about your score, it's not worth anyone's time.

Also a point that a lot of people are skipping is that you can accelerate videos when you watch them. 1.4x is optimal for me.

@richadhirani53 : If its available, and it can give you an 'edge' - why not use it?

But I agree with you in your initial 'confusion'. Obviously to each his own, but I'm of the opinion that a watch isn't going to improve time management. Any ol' analog watch will do. Just write down what time it is at the beginning of each section, and after every 8-10 questions check the time and mark time the time again.

Left handed test takers be aware.

Yeah....you shouldn't have diagrammed W-Most -> FPR, or inferred what you did..

That's where you got lost.

The 'almost every wednesday' is there to tell you how often the FRP --> HPC relationship occurs. It does not produce any logic statements by itself.

I just took this PT last week, so I'll chip in.

Choice E tries to say three things about the passage:

1) The passage is about the legal status of an ethnic group...

2)...with regards to land ownership and commercial autonomy.

And 3) it shows how rival groups benefit from that particular legal status.

Irregardless; when you first read the passage, you should have found that:

The passage is about the Dawes Act, and how Native Americans weren't allowed to sell their land until 25 years of ownership had passed. This passage suggests that the law's particular clause on 25-year-ownership was set in place as a compromise between non-Native Americans that wanted to buy land and politicians in power that wanted to extend their patronage networks - in this case through the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

So...

Is the passage about the legal status of an ethnic group? No. It's about certain legal rights an ethnic group had under a certain law. Their status is never in question.

Does the passage talk about an ethnic group with regards to land ownership and commercial autonomy with regards to legal matters? Well, kinda. It, even suggests that the ethnic group in question should have been able to sell their land to each other, or back to their tribe. But commercial autonomy extends far past simply the buying and selling of land, so this is a bit exaggerated.

Does the passage talk about how rival group benefitted from that particular legal status? Well, groups benefitted. But not from a legal status, but from a particular law. And what's more is...did the Native Americans have rival groups according to the passage? Not really. Non-Native Americans wanted to take advantage of the Native Americans, but that didn't make them rivals. If anything the politicians and the land grabbers could be seen as each other's rivals. But that doesn't necessarily fit into how the answer choice vaguely states 'rival groups'.

I hope this clears it up for you. Be careful when you read through answer choices. When reviewing, a good tip for understanding why a choice of this question type is wrong is to go back and test each tenet of the answer choice by finding hard evidence for it in the passage.

Hey there, I'll give this a shot.

Going back to the stimulus:

Premise 1: Free Poetry readings take place almost every Wednesday.

Premise 2: If a poetry reading takes place then there is half priced coffee all day.

According to choice E, there are some Wednesdays when there is no half-priced coffee.

But quick, back to to the stimulus:

If PR (which occurs almost every wednesday) ---> then HPC

But according to Choice E:

No HPC on some Wednesdays.

What this choice is betting on, is you making the mistake of thinking that free poetry is necessary for half priced coffee to occur. This is not the case.

The contrapositive of the stimulus is:

No HPC ---> No Poetry Reading

NOT

HPC ---> Poetry Reading

In summa:

There cannot be a poetry reading on Wednesday if there is no half priced coffee that day. BUT, Wednesday could simply be half-priced-coffee-day, every week, whether or not there is a poetry reading.

The 'almost every Wednesday' is there to trick you - it only refers to how often poetry occurs, not to how often half priced coffee occurs. Half priced coffee is necessary for poetry to occur but not sufficient. Therefore we have no idea, if there are some Wednesdays without half priced coffee. There could be but we don't know for sure, and so choice (E) is wrong.

Hope this helps.

^ Hard to tell. A lot of people came and went, and some stayed longer than others. Somewhere around 50.

Great to what you guys are doing. I use a regular notebook and pencil right as I go along with the syllabus. And I have another notebook for diagramming logic games, when I am correcting. Earlier in my studying when I had no idea, how a logic game for example would work, I would diagram along with the video explanation. It would help make things that I was missing 'click'.

I would be more inclined to use the notes at the end of lessons if they were synchronised across all lessons; so when reviewing E (A+C+D) for example, I could quickly scroll to my notes on A and C very quickly.

Hey Nancy, I hope I can help.

But to preface, I think you may have gotten tied up with the stimulus and what the author's point was. Luckily the question stem summarises the argument for us by directly asking us to choose an answer choice that strengthens the argument that the fifth force exists.

This is how I understand the stimulus:

Premise/Context: Before 1986, scientists thought there were only four forces.

Premise: Experiments then (around 1986) started showing that that a fifth force possibly existed.

Premise: The existence of the of this fifth force would explain why previously made experiments turned out the way they did. 'Way' being - different from what the established theories had predicted.

I couldn't find a conclusion written in the stimulus. But what the author is saying/ trying to convince us of, is that the fifth force probably exists. And this is the whole point of this stimulus.

By identifying what the author is trying to argue/convince us of, our job gets so much easier. Because its a most strengthens question, in evaluating each answer choice, ask yourself - is this evidence (answer choice) that best at convincing me of the argument i? (the fifth force exists)

(A) is wrong because 'before the 1970s' is an irrelevant point of comparison, to 'before 1986', because after telling us that there was no sophisticated equipment before the 1970s, we have no idea how that equipment would factor into detecting or understanding the fifth force.

(C) is wrong because this is weakening the argument. It does this by bringing up the opinions of scientists that say the fifth force is just an aspect of gravity. The 'alleged' should raise signals that the fifth force isn't taking seriously here, and the stimulus is all about convincing us that the fifth force does exist.

(D) is wrong because this also weakens the argument. By saying that poor testing sites affected scientists' understanding of gravity, why should we believe that the fifth force indeed exists? The fifth force after all, was supposed to explain why previous predictions were off. If its just the testing site, then understanding that only four forces exist, could be enough.

(E) is wrong because it is irrelevant and out of scope. Other exciting things were happening in theoretical physics at the time the fifth universal force was being postulated? So what? It could have been done by different people working on different ideas.

(B) is the correct answer, but it is a bit convoluted to read at the end of a section! If you flip the double negatives, it reads: '[All] previous scientific results are [compatible] with the notion of a fifth force'. If believing in the fifth force not only explains one small error in prediction but works for all previous experiments, then I'm definitely convinced it exists. And the author's argument is therefore strengthened.

I hope this helps.

@siddharththanki488, do you really think so? The ultimate and premium only offer more problem sets and access to exams and answers that can be obtained elsewhere at a much cheaper price. Or am I missing something?

I politely disagree. Trying to work out 2 hours every other day is definitely way too much to handle with an already busy schedule. However, it is perfectly reasonable and possible to get a good 30 minute workout in, 3 times a week without going to the gym. I do 5 sets of pushups, bodyweight squats, situps, lungs and dips, with the last sets going close to fail in 30 minutes or less on M,W, and F mornings. Just choose between lunges/squats and pushups/dips if you want to do 3X5 in 20 minutes. You could also do this workout (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xpx3qo_p90-ab-ripper-100_lifestyle) every morning in 6-15 minutes on a yoga mat. You won't necessarily get 'ripped' but you'll strengthen your core, maintain or even lose weight. I lost 15lbs over a period of two months just by doing the video workout above 5 times a week.

@laestelle2009241 : Have you heard of the Pomodoro Technique? I study in 25 minute bursts taking a 5 minute break between sessions. Obviously if I'm in the middle of a lesson, or section I finish it and then take my break. I get up, walk around, maybe make some coffee, and clear my head. The amount of study, or work I get done in just 1, 25 minute session has increased significantly since I first started doing this. There are plenty of free timers available for your computer or smartphone that'll time your breaks and your sessions. It helps you avoid procrastinating, and teaches you to turn your brain on and distractions off as soon as the timer starts. Also, make sure to turn off your phone or put it in 'airplane mode' during your study time, and if you can, put it out of reach and out of sight.

I do Mondays and Thursdays for now, because the test itself will be on Monday. I also do it on Thursdays because I want to have at least two days between PTs with enough time for blind review. But I'm going to kick that up to 3 times a weeks for four week starting April 28.

^ Oh yes, most definitely. If you haven't run out of RCs to do, there's no reason to look elsewhere.

Great links! I did not know about the pumpkin seeds. Do you swallow them?

I'm in Bellerose, Queens. Let me know if anyone wants to get together to PT, or go over some problems.

Kubrick's great. I've been trying to play ultimate and work out more. I would love to watch more films, but I find that physical releases are a more effective for me as a reset button.

There are multiple FL inferences that you should be intuiting through repetitive practice. I think with more and more practice, these will become more obvious to you, and automatic. I've also heard that Gensler's book is worth looking at. I might go check it out from a library later today.

In terms of reading comprehension... From my own research, the best reading for the LSAT and law school as well, is technical non-fiction. You have to get your brain fit enough to work through complex and convoluted language and reasoning, for hours at a time. Most people recommend the Economist on here. I personally have a book list of non-fiction books I want to complete before I start law school.

Along with the Economist, I would recommend reading the Sunday Book Review in the New York Times, and Nature Magazine; maybe even National Geographic. These should cover the major areas that will appear on the test, and get you used to understanding passages full of new terms that, analogous to the LSAT, challenge your mental dexterity. Of course, the aforementioned reading material will have sprinkles of law here and there.

Ah ok. Sorry if my statements were presumptuous.

Well I hope you realise that the answer is wrong for different reasons but...

No. This is not a logic statement. But I guess you are trying to form a double negation? Not unreasonable, does not = logically reasonable. Secondly, you can't just negate both terms and preserve the logic of a statement. You have to switch the terms that are sufficient and necessary as well. (A--->(~B), (B)--->(~A).

The correct answer for the question is NOT C, because 1) the stimulus uses a reasonable premise to draw a reasonable conclusion, while the choice C uses an unreasonable premise to draw a reasonable conclusion. 2) The use of odds in choice C is different, flipping a coin 1000 times vs. the stimulus, 1/1000. Therefore choice C is definitely not 'most similar' in its reasoning to the stimulus.

Bubbling in after every question works better for me on logical reasoning because of the the rhythm it allows me to get into. I do the same for LG and RC - although its less of a rhythm issue.

On logic games, I imagine that going game-by-game could be beneficial because you could focus on keying into that mental mode of drawing different inferences and 'seeing the game'. But I still bubble in question by question because I tend to make mistakes if I transfer answers after each game, or after each reading passage for that matter. I would get paranoid about having made a mistake - so I would go back and recheck my answers.

You can do it Johnny!

Nice! I took a diagnostic this morning, I got stumped and missed questions on LG because I couldn't do it within the time limit.

Ah yes, sister/brother in arms! Let me know how it goes, and if you want to talk out any finer points as we are most probably pacing each other.